Spaceman Spiff Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20051216%2F0623629166.htm&sc=1151&photoid=20051215DCEV104&floc=NW_1-T Report: Bush Permitted NSA to Spy in U.S. NEW YORK (AP) - The National Security Agency has eavesdropped, without warrants, on as many 500 people inside the United States at any given time since 2002, The New York Times reported Friday. That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds - perhaps thousands - of people inside the United States, the Times reported. Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time. The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program. Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said. But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions. Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the disclosure was ``shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law.'' Asked about the administration's contention that the eavesdropping has disrupted terrorist attacks, Fredrickson said the ACLU couldn't comment until it sees some evidence. ``They've veiled these powers in secrecy so there's no way for Congress or any independent organizations to exercise any oversight.'' The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues. Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night. The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists. Earlier this week, NBC News reported it had obtained a document generated by an obscure Pentagon agency that analyzes intelligence reports on suspicious domestic activity. The 400-page document included at least 20 references to U.S. citizens, plus information on anti-war meetings and protests. The Pentagon said Wednesday that Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, had ordered a full review of the system for handling such information to ensure that it complies with Pentagon policies and federal law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails I don't have a problem with an international monitoring RIGHT AFTER 9/11 or any major attack in the future... It should not be the norm though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 The key part of this is that nothing gained from those eavesdrops be used against said individual in a criminal proceeding. I have no problem with this at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Same problem here as with the Patriot Act. Just make sure someone is making sure abuses do not occur and people are held accountable for their actions. No accountability and no oversite breads corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Same problem here as with the Patriot Act. Just make sure someone is making sure abuses do not occur and people are held accountable for their actions. No accountability and no oversite breads corruption. Both this and the Patriot act have those provisions. And both are not limitless or endless. Which is the ultimate brilliance of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 When you consider that terrorists have intentionally placed sleeper cells inside the U.S. and have actively attempted to recruit American-born Muslims to their cause, can you really pretend to be surprised that our intelligence agencies have to monitor U.S. citizens? Not doing so would be a deriliction of duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Platypus Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 WTF?!? You think they were listening to my adult phone calls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 No need for to rant about the positives for once. Nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Platypus Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Quite frankly, if they are listening to my 1-900 calls, I think they should pay half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Quite frankly, if they are listening to my 1-900 calls, I think they should pay half. actually that is the policy, but the listening post that was observing you came to a consensus that your fetish was not a turn on to them so they would not have to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Depends on the fetish if you pretending to be a baby in a diaper that needs to be burped then they should charge you extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Platypus Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 ROFL!!! I knew they would find a way around it. Just like the gubment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I have some problems with it. Especially when you couple it with the policy of arresting Americans without charge. Holding them in a jail cell without representation, and denying them due process for an indeterminable ammount of time. I don't like the idea of giving the government carte blanc power to do anything they want. How much like Nixon and his enemies list which became his enemies list. The potential for abuse is too big. You need a way to wire tap these guys, develop a council that can give a temporary okay, but there still should be probable cause, not just cause I want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Burgold.... holdiing enemy combatants without representation wasn't part of the article. As for wire tapping international calls... fine with me. These sleepers are having to communicate with their handlers back in the ME in some form or another.... we might as well be trying to capture those communications. Trust me...if we weren't doing this and an attack were to happen... I'm quite sure the left would seize on it as something Bush SHOULD have done but wasn't because he was to busy chopping wood in Crawford Texas or something. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsOrlando Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Don't look now but this is publicity for a book thats coming out http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Don't look now but this is publicity for a book thats coming outhttp://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm if thats true it wouldnt suprise me in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Im shocked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 It needs oversight, and it has to be held accountable. If Clinton had asked for this the Republicans would claim it violated Constitutional principles or some such nonsense. Warrants are wack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 CSkin, All these things are linked. And I was talking about imprisoning Americans without representation, charge, or trial, not foreigners. Which we have found out they were doing. You have to put all the decisions together and not look at it piecemeal. You may be okay with this, but are okay with this combined with them investigating and keeping permanent records on Quaker protest groups? Are you okay with those two, but okay with them entering homes without warrants and without even needing in-department approval just a single agent's suspiscion, are you okay with is that an acceptable suspension of rights for our safety, but are you satisfied with those three plus giving them permission that they got to get a hold of all your bank, library, and credit reports without warrent or even supervision... Are you then okay with not giving Americans a trial when they're being held, are you okay with Americans not even being formally charged, are you satisfied with Americans not getting representation. See, if you look at one thing all by itself, it's probably okay, but you combine all the puzzle pieces then you begin to see a disturbing pattern. One of the best ideas of our founding fathers were checks and balances. I think we still need them. Even if we will allow these guys to do invade our privacy on a temp basis there should be followup to determine if it was warranted or if it should desist or be maintained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 If it needed to be done then the law should have been changed through the legal processes that the Constitution provides. The President can't just issue secret executive orders that overide the law. What other secret executive orders has he issued that overode laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 The question is who leaked it to the liberal media? And isn't it funny that something that happened 4 yrs ago just happened to be "Big News" to offset the Real Big News in IRAQ yesterday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Actually, I do agree with you that the timing of this release is probably not coincidental. I still don't like the attempt to do away with checks and balances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I dont see where this states their will be no oversight. Similar to the cries that the Patriot act had no oversight, when it clearly does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 Without warrant to me implies no checks and balances. I may be wrong or oversimplifying, but if your department can summarily choose to spy, wiretap, or arrest without judicial oversight... then one branch is acting indepently of the others. As I said above, if you combine this with several of the other choices they made... Database Imprisonment without Charge Imprisonment without Representation Imprisonment without trial Access to bank accounts, library, internet etc. without warrant Phone records without warrant and add wiretaps to it There's a pretty disturbing pattern of privacy being invaded by one branch without oversight except internal oversight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I dont see where this states their will be no oversight.Similar to the cries that the Patriot act had no oversight, when it clearly does. Just curious, where is the oversight for the Patriot Act And where does it state that there will be oversight for the NSA actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.